Andhra Pradesh Court July 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.Purijagannadh and Others Vs. the Government of A.P and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner challenges provisions of Rule 17(3) of the A.P. Chit Fund Rules, 2008 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.Rule 17(3) of the A.P. Chit Fund Rules, 2008, reads as under:- " (3) No agent or representative of the foreman or the family members of his family shall act as agents:-- No employee of the foreman or the members of his family shall act as agent or subscriber for the purpose of participation in a chit auction. However, a subscriber can appoint an agent in writing who can represent only one subscriber in each auction."The A.P Chit Fund Rules,1971 are framed in exercise of the rule making powers under Section 89 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, sub-section (1) of which empowers the State, in consultation with the Reserve Bank, by notification in the Official Gazette, to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) enacts that in particular and without ...
The Superintendent, Government General Hospital Vs. Ganji Manikyamma a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
(As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member) The appellant is the unsuccessful 3rd opposite party in CC 168/2004 on the file of the District Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada, where under, an order dated 06.11.2006 was passed directing the third opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.one lakh on the ground of medical negligence by the Ops 1 and 2 Doctors employed in its hospital. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence under law. The facts of the case disclose that the complainants are the family members of Late Immanuel who was the bread winner to the entire family. That on 02.11.2003 Immanuel fell sick at about 2.00 PM so he was taken to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for giving treatment but he was not allowed to enter into the hospital. The attendants have paid user charges and on that he was admitted in the verandah of the hospital but no treatment was given immediately. The doctors demanded amount to give treatment. The family m...
Cheedey Vamsi Priya, W/O.Suresh Vs. Paritala Babu Rao, S/O.Lakshmikant ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
1. Heard Sri S.A.Chari, learned counsel for the appellant.2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05-9- 2008 in A.S.No.12 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna district, in modifying the judgment and decree dated 13-4-2007 in O.S.No.451 of 2004 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jaggaiahpet by reducing the rate of interest. 3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit before the trial Court. 4. The suit is for recovery of money. The trial Court decreed the suit along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the specified rate of interest. On appeal the lower appellate Court having concurred with the judgment of the trial Court, only modified to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 24% per annum to 12% per annum. Hence the second appeal. 5. The only substantial question of law that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is - whether the lower appell...
Tharala Veerabhadram and Others Vs.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The six petitioners in this Writ Petition are accused of causing the death of one Bonagani Komuraiah of Korivi Village in Warangal District and consequently, they are facing prosecution launched by the State for the said offence. They are now challenging the validity of the orders passed by the State Government, through their G.O.Rt.No. 1447 Law (L.A.&J;) Department, dated 13.10.1999, appointing Sri Pamulaparthy Sadasiva Rao, Advocate, Hanamkonda, as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in Sessions Case No. 299 of 1998 arising out of Crime No. 34 of 1998 on the file of the Police Station Mahabubabad, Warangal District. These orders have been passed by the State, in exercise of the power available to it under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The main thrust of challenge against these orders is that the petitioners apprehend that the Special Public Prosecutor may not conduct the criminal case impartially, inasmuch as he has come to be app...
M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad Vs. K.Chandrakala and Ot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
1.Both the appeal and cross objections are directed against the same award in O.P.No.694 of 2005, dated 05-03-2007 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Since both the appeal and the cross objections arise out of the same award, they are being heard together and disposed of by this judgment. 3. While the appellant-Insurance Company filed the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.1350 of 2007 questioning the award fastening liability on it jointly and severally along with the 4th respondent herein (owner of the vehicle) in a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein (claimants), the claimants have filed the cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Claimant No.1 is the wife of one K.Bikshapathi (deceased in the accident) and claimants 2 and 3 are his minor children. The deceased was an agriculturist. He engaged a tractor bearing Regn. No.AP-24V-3625 for harvesting paddy. On 11- 11-2004 during h...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Saberabee
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The petitioner assails the cancellation of the assignment of land in his favour which was confirmed in appeal and thereafter in revision. He seeks a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession over the assigned land. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey No.78/1 of Aurangabad Village, Medak Taluq, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under proceedings dated 31.05.1978 of the Tahsildar, Medak Taluq, under the Laoni Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 26.07.1958 read with G.O.Ms.No.1724 dated 26.08.1959. Survey No.78/1 corresponds to new Survey No.78/69. He was thereafter issued a pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of the above land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. While so, the assignment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Medak, respondent 3, under proceedings dated 28.02.1994. The petitioner claims ignorance of ...
Smt. Tiruvuru Subhashini Vs. Sri M. Sudhakar and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
(Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President) 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Appellant is the unsuccessful complainant. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a plot for Rs.41,400/- on 01.11.2000 in the venture commenced on 20.08.1995. However, the registration of plot was not made in view of the fact that the opposite parties could not get approval from TUDA. Therefore, she sought for refund of the amount together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 01.11.2000, besides compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The opposite parties resisted the matter. They admitted the payments made by the complainant, however alleged that the complainant could not come forward for getting the registered sale deed executed in her favour despite several requests. As there was no other way, they ha...
Poosarla Krishna Vs. Kranthi Road Transport (P) Ltd
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
(As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member) This appeal is arising out of the order passed in CC 268/2007 by the District Forum I, Visakhapatnam in dismissing he complaint for default of the complainant on the date of hearing. The order is assailed as erroneous on the ground that the complainant was not given any opportunity and that it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The appellant/complainant filed claim for Rs. 34,000/- and damages of Rs.25,000/- against the respondent/opposite party alleging that he had deposited Rs.30,000/-as an agent and that the complainant is entitled for commission as per the agreement and that the opposite party had not returned the said deposit, as such, the act or omission amounts to deficiency in service. The respondent/opposite party filed its version stating that the complainant as its agent had allowed to book explosive goods for transportation and during the transit, Kasibugga Police, Srikakulam District came to know of illegal activit...
B. Lakshmi Vs. M/S. Radha Realtors Pvt. Ltd and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
Oral Order (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of dismissal of her complaint on the ground that she did not appear on the date on which the matter was posted for filing her affidavit evidence. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that she is a resident of Kadapa and therefore, could not come in time and file her affidavit evidence. Heard both sides. 3. Since the District Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside the exparte order, the complainant preferred this appeal. As the complaint was dismissed solely for non-filing of affidavit evidence, we are of the opinion that one more chance could be given to the complainant, however, in view of latches on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Costs paid. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The District Forum is directed to restore the complaint to its original file. The Dist...
M/S. Tata Motors Ltd Vs. Mohd. Akhil Pasha and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.77/2007 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out are that complainant No.1 was doing vegetable business and purchased a four wheeler carrier i.e. TATA LPT 909 bearing No.AP 15 X 0468 to eke out his livelihood. He submitted that he availed a loan from the opposite party for purchasing the vehicle and complainants 2 and 3 are guarantors to the said loan. The total value of the vehicle is Rs.7,31,530 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards booking of the vehicle on 13-6-2005 and also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- as down payment and opposite party arranged an amount of Rs.7,31,530/- and the complainant No.1 entered into an agreement on 13-6-2005 and issued 28 cheques vide cheque bearing Nos.0366077 to 0366104 of Andhra Bank, Main Branch, Azmathpura, Karimngar for his future payments. The complainant No.1 submitted...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »